In 2006, the schism which began with the Kasparov-Short World Championship was to finally end,
unifying the World Championship title after 13 long years. Bulgarian grandmaster Veselin
Topalov, the winner of the 2005 FIDE World Championship in San Luis was due to play Vladimir
Kramnik, the Classical World Champion, and the winner was to emerge as the single, unified, World Chess Champion.

Kramnik and Topalov, Elista 2006

The contest began with Kramnik winning both of the
first two games, and due to the extreme brevity of the match (a mere 12 games) this established
an early commanding lead. After two more drawn games, on a rest day, Topalov's manager Silvio
Danailov, issued a press release which threatened to abort the match. The press release read, in part:

The careful study of the video recordings from the rest rooms done by the technical experts of the Bulgarian team revealed the following facts which we would herewith like to bring to your attention:

After each move Mr. Kramnik immediately heads to the rest room and from it directly to the bathroom. During every game he visited the relaxation room 25 times at the average and the bathroom more than 50 times - the bathroom is the only place without video surveillance.

Unlike Mr. Kramnik, the World Champion Veselin Topalov spends his time mainly at the playing table. The average number of times he visited the rest room and the bathroom is 8 and 4 respectively.

In our opinion these facts are quite strange, if not suspicious. ... Should this extremely serious problem remain unsolved by 10.00 o'clock
tomorrow (September 29th, 2006), we would seriously reconsider the participation of the World Champion Veselin Topalov in this match.
[1]

The FIDE Appeals Committee, after viewing the video tapes, found that the frequency of Kramnik's visits to the toilet
had been exaggerated, but nevertheless took these allegations seriously, and decreed that the private toilets would be
closed and a common toilet opened for both players.

Kramnik's team
rejected this decision, declaring: "The protests of the Topalov team and the suspicions in the press release of Mr.
Topalov are utterly disgraceful and are touching Mr. Kramnik's privacy."[2] Kramnik refused to play under the
altered conditions, and as a result, Kramnik forfeited game 5.

In a state of chaos, the match was placed on hold while FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov flew to Elista in the hope for
bringing a solution to this crisis, which by this time had been given the pejorative name, "Toiletgate." After several
days of strife and intense negotiations, Ilyumzhinov declared that the match would continue. The members of the Appeals
Committee had been replaced, the access to the toilets was restored, and the forfeited game 5 would remain a loss for
Kramnik.

As the match continued, Topalov won both game 8 and game 9, giving him a one point lead with only three games left to play. His lead was not to
last long, as Kramnik scored a brilliant victory in game 10, thereby tying the score,
and after two more draws the match was sent into overtime.

The first phase of the tiebreaks was a four game mini-match played with 25 minutes per side, and a 10 second increment. Kramnik's
victory in game 16 allowed him to win the mini-match. Vladimir Kramnik, after 13 years of
chaos in the chess world, had thus become the the solitary undisputed World Chess Champion.

ChessHigherCat: <Petrosianic: <ChessHigherCat>: <In other completely absurd words, but my point is that not everything that may sound unusual is necessarily untrue or laughable, especially when the KGB is involved.>

<Exactly, but to say that a thing is not completely impossible is not sufficient. You're trying and failing to show that it's probable or even remotely likely>

The accusations have already been made. It is not my job (and I lack access to the videos) to prove the likelihood of their accuracy, but I have proposed a method for testing them. Your unsubstantiated statements that the accusations are ridiculous are hardly more impressive.

<and also failing to deal with Topalov's unethical behavior in going over the Tournament Committee's head. Saying you personally don't care about it doesn't make it any less. The fact remains that 10 years later, Topalov was censured by the Ethics Committe and Kramnik was not. You haven't said anything to suggest that that was the wrong outcome.>

1) Under the circumstances that's about as impressive to me as saying that Trotsky was condemned in absentia by some Stalinist kangaroo court, since the accusations include the corruption of the very FIDE committee he bypassed in the first place. Even if the members are different, the "evidence" was provided by the members Topalov claims are corrupt.
2) You've yet to explain to me what was so "unethical" about circumventing a committee Topalov believed corrupt. Again, that would be just as justifiable as circumventing a Stalinist kangaroo court under the circumstances.

Regarding your complaints about the impossibility of absolute proof, that is not the legal standard or else nothing could ever be proven in a court of law. Regarding what I consider to be a reasonable standard of proof, I see that I am once again forced to cite one of my previous contributions (which you obviously ignored):

<The only meaningful test would be a comparison of the degree of correlation with Fritz of 1) K's post-potty moves versus 2) K's pre-potty moves. Even if the post-potties moves showed a higher correlation with Fritz, he could still argue: Of course, do you expect me to play as well when I'm dying to go to the toilet? Still, if his post-potty moves showed a nearly 100% correlation (which can't be analyzed without the tapes) and the other moves showed a much lower correlation, that would constitute strong (albeit circumstantial) evidence against him.>
<

beatgiant: <ChessHigherCat>
The contents of the Topalov team's press release were, as I think we all agree, not even an attempt to prove anything. The first question any serious inquirer would ask, and which would have been <easy> to answer, is <what was the correlation between Topalov's own moves and Fritz>? If the answer to that had been convenient to their case, would they not have published it? (We'd all be very surprised if Topalov's correlation with Fritz was a lot less than Kramnik's.)

So what was the point of the press release? As most people concluded, <to slander and upset Kramnik in order to gain advantage in the contest>.

Do you think the press release had any better motive than that? If so, what?

Absentee: <ChessHigherCat: You've yet to explain to me what was so "unethical" about circumventing a committee Topalov believed corrupt.>

Topalov never said anything about the committee. You just made that up. In fact, the general feeling back then was that FIDE favoured their champion Topalov over the PCA titleholder Kramnik.
And the committee was changed because Kramnik complained that it was partial to Topalov after it decided, without consulting him, to have the players use a common restroom.

As to what was unethical about it, it might be the bloody obvious fact that Topalov was FIDE World Champion, represented the FIDE side of the schism, and had agreed to play the match under FIDE auspices without any prior objection. So yeah, what he did was unethical, and really dumb to boot.

And the imaginative accusations of death threats, etc appeared in interviews only AFTER the end of the match. Topalov had never mentioned anything like that before.

Petrosianic: <ChessHigherCat>: <The accusations have already been made. It is not my job (and I lack access to the videos) to prove the likelihood of their accuracy, but I have proposed a method for testing them. Your unsubstantiated statements that the accusations are ridiculous are hardly more impressive.>

You've forgotten who's making accusations and who isn't. Topalov committed an undeniably unethical act, was censured by the Ethics Committee, and earned the approbation of the world for his behavior.

That is the public record. What you have are accusations that you think somehow wipe out the public record. They do not.

ChessHigherCat: <Absentee: <ChessHigherCat: You've yet to explain to me what was so "unethical" about circumventing a committee Topalov believed corrupt.>

<Topalov never said anything about the committee. You just made that up.>

As usual with your endlessly specious arguments, you just made up what I said: I never said "Topalov said", I said "Topalov believed" as evidenced by the "bloody obvious" fact that he circumvented the FIDE Committee.

<"In fact, the general feeling back then was that FIDE favoured their champion Topalov over the PCA titleholder Kramnik.">

Here again, you deliberately cast everything in a jaundiced light by omitting to explain the context: Anand was complaining that Topalov had been allowed another match because "IT SEEMS ANYBODY CAN BUY INTO A MATCH" = FIDE is totally corrupt and open to bribes. It was not particularly biased towards Topalov but to the highest bidder, which means that it was totally corrupt and thus unreliable for anybody.

The same arguments apply to <Petrosianic> who is spouting off some nonsense about the offense being <a matter of public record" just as the totally absurd and imaginary offenses of 99% of the victims of the Stalinist kangaroo courts are now "matters of public records", if you're stupid enough to believe the public records.

<BeatGiant> Ho, f'g hum, more stale arguments about the inadequate defense at the time. Maybe FIDE denied Topalov access to the videos or other necessary evidence at the time, or maybe he was really threatened or intimidated as he said, which I find about as demented and ridiculous an idea as the claim that Stalin could sign a pact with Hitler or that Putin could support extreme-right clandestinely candidates in Europe and the US by hacking the liberal parties -- ha, ha, the whole idea is obviously absurd, thank God there are smart people like us to laugh at the very possibility!
Anyway, for the millionth time, the past is only of historical interest, what would be interesting would be a retrospective analysis based on tapes.

beatgiant: <ChessHigherCat><more stale arguments about the inadequate defense at the time>

It wasn't a <defense>, it was an <accusation>. The accusation asks us to believe that Kramnik, not some faceless Russian secret agent, was cheating at chess by using Fritz in his break room. This accusation made Kramnik upset. Topalov won at least one point in the match as a result of the ensuing controversy.

<the past is only of historical interest>
Then you won't keep wondering <what was so unethical> about publicizing malicious speculations about your opponent during the match?

What upset Kramnik was being locked out of his toilet. This was clearly cronyism between the committee and Danialov, and was completely unacceptable. The default should have been overturned, the committee replaced and Danialov banned from professional involvement in chess for at least ten years, in my opinion.

Finally, a valid if quibbling point: I should have said "inadequate substantiation of the accusation."
<The accusation asks us to believe that Kramnik, not some faceless Russian secret agent, was cheating at chess by using Fritz in his break room.>

This objection is almost too silly to answer since the claim that the bathroom is wired obviously implies a spy network supporting Kramnik's alleged cheating.

<This accusation made Kramnik upset. Topalov won at least one point in the match as a result of the ensuing controversy.>

What proof do you have of that?

<the past is only of historical interest> Then you won't keep wondering <what was so unethical> about publicizing malicious speculations about your opponent during the match?>

Not if the accusations were valid, which I find completely plausible but not proven, which could be done through a retroactive study based on the tapes. Otherwise, it is hard to see what specifically could be achieved by making baseless accusations, other than "upsetting" the opponent. BTW, did Topalov have any past record of making such accusations in the thousands of games he had played? Isn't a bit odd that he wouldn't suddenly start then? On the other hand, the motive for checking moves with Fritz is obviously of the greatest practical importance.

In any case, I can see that the "3 little [Russian] bears" will persist in ignoring/distorting and generally burying my contributions on the general principle that most readers won't bother to even read what I really said, which simply proves the power of dogged propaganda over claims for objective verification in this intellectual iron age of the mass media.

beatgiant: <ChessHigherCat><Topalov won at least one point><What proof do you have of that?>

Kramnik forfeited game 5 due to the controversy, as you can read in the match history above.

<the claim that the bathroom is wired obviously implies a spy network>
Yes, but all the wiring in the world wouldn't do anything unless <Kramnik> used it. The accusation was an attack on the integrity of Kramnik, personally.

ChessHigherCat: <ChessHigherCat><Topalov won at least one point><What proof do you have of that?>

<Kramnik forfeited game 5 due to the controversy, as you can read in the match history above.>

Because of the controversy? I would say it was because of the altered conditions, namely that this private restroom was closed! That supports Topalov's accusations. If, as Absentee says, Kramnik suffers from <ankylosing spondylitis. It can cause serious pain, especially if you have to remain in the same position for a long time> it's hard to see how a public or private bathroom would make any difference, especially since the public bathroom could be equipped with a special "handicapped toilet" of any desired specifications. If, on the other hand, the private bathroom were used for cheating, the reason for forfeiting is all too obvious.

<the claim that the bathroom is wired obviously implies a spy network><Yes, but all the wiring in the world wouldn't do anything unless <Kramnik> used it. The accusation was an attack on the integrity of Kramnik, personally.>

Of course the accusation included Kramnik as one of the culprits, just as any accusation of cheating directed against a poker player must include the player in question as well any accomplices he may have. Does that make the accusation untrue? No, that is a matter to be examined objectively.

beatgiant: <ChessHigherCat><because of the altered conditions>
It was a forfeit. Kramnik was forfeited because he insisted on playing only under the contractual conditions. So yes, it was for no other reason than the controversy.

<special "handicapped toilet">
It wasn't about the actual "going to the toilet." A quote from Kramnik's team: "The restroom is small and Mr Kramnik likes to walk and therefore uses the space of the bathroom as well." This probably helped him manage the pain of his condition.

<Does that make the accusation untrue?>
Not necessarily, but it does speak to the ethics of publishing such an accusation without any evidence.

ChessHigherCat: <beatgiant: <ChessHigherCat><because of the altered conditions> It was a forfeit. Kramnik was forfeited because he insisted on playing only under the contractual conditions. So yes, it was for no other reason than the controversy.>

<special "handicapped toilet"><It wasn't about the actual "going to the toilet." A quote from Kramnik's team: "The restroom is small and Mr Kramnik likes to walk and therefore uses the space of the bathroom as well." This probably helped him manage the pain of his condition.>

Sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever. Nobody insists on strict adherence to contractual conditions solely on principle, it has to be something that seriously inconveniences them. Why would a private toilet seriously inconvenience him, especially since it's extremely unlikely that both players would use it at once. The following "explanation" is complete nonsense:

<A quote from Kramnik's team: "The restroom is small and Mr Kramnik likes to walk and therefore uses the space of the bathroom as well." This probably helped him manage the pain of his condition.>

You don't have to explain that it was a quote from Kramnik's team, who else could possibly assert such a desperately lame argument (present company excluded)? Let's see now, five giant steps through the "restroom" (a retarded misnomer for a lounge, I presume) and now for a quick dip of the butt in the soothing waters of the toilet and five umbrella steps on the way back ... You can't possibly analyze chess as well you do and take that nonsense seriously. I really have to doubt your sincerity.

As to the ethics of making an "accusation without evidence", that makes no sense whatever. What is unethical is making ***a groundless accusation***, which is by no means the same as accusing a person whom one reasonably suspects to have committed a crime. As to the lack of evidence, it could be due to FIDE's refusal to allow Topalov access to the tapes or other necessary evidence, as I already pointed out. Finally, as to driving poor Mr. Kramnik to forfeit a game because his private data dump was closed, cry me a river...

The main part that was not in evidence was the claimed superhuman play by Kramnik. Kramnik was tactically lost at several points in game 2, for example, so if cheating, he was doing a very clever job of it

Sally Simpson: Kramnik latched onto the fact Topalov (or rather Topalov's team) were getting edgy about the toilet trips so kept it going.

Topalov's book on the match is not as one sided as one might think.

Team Topalov did a marvellous job of convincing their man something was up "page 25 'On the Edge in Elista' by Topalov and Ginchev:

"...my delegation noticed the high number of toilet visits by my opponent." Their mistake was pointing it out to toplaov and making an issue of it.

In Game 7 he admits because he could not see Kramnik who was away from the board on the camera he panicked and admits to possibly feeling paranoid and played moves 12 to 24 at almost blitz speed to keep Kramnik at the board.

"...every time my opponent left the board I was getting nervous."

The doo dah hit the fan...and team Kramnik went along. All is fair in love and chess matches.

sac 4 mate: <"...my delegation noticed the high number of toilet visits by my opponent." Their mistake was pointing it out to toplaov and making an issue of it.>

That's one element of the Toiletgate saga that's frequently overlooked -
that Topalov's team only became aware of the frequency of Kramnik's toilet visits after they spied on Kramnik by obtaining the recordings of him backstage. As Yasser Seirawan and many others later pointed out, the match officials should never have allowed Danailov and co. to access that footage. I'm not sure whether they were biased as Kramnik complained, or simply incompetent, but it's clear that they weren't fit for the heavy responsibility of presiding over a world championship match.

Petrosianic: <ChessHigherCat><The same arguments apply to Petrosianic who is spouting off some nonsense about the offense being matter of public record" just as the totally absurd and imaginary offenses of 99% of the victims of the Stalinist kangaroo courts are now "matters of public records", if you're stupid enough to believe the public records.>

I'm fascinated (not offended, just fascinated) by your ability to reach your pre-determined conclusion, regardless of the facts. Topalov broke the rules of chess? "So what?" The Ethics Committee concurred with that conclusion? "Big deal! Now let's talk hypotheticals!" None of it because Stalin was bad too, and other lame rationalizations. I'm actually offending you by sticking to facts you wish to ignore.

I appreciate the conversation because we're all tempted to be irrational at times, even those of us who don't give into it, and we need a reality check now and then to remind us of how ridiculous it looks to others lest we be tempted.

Absentee: <ChessHigherCat: As usual with your endlessly specious arguments, you just made up what I said: I never said "Topalov said", I said "Topalov believed" as evidenced by the "bloody obvious" fact that he circumvented the FIDE Committee.>

Of course that evidences nothing, except inside your head.
You could with equal merit claim that he circumvented it because he knew he didn't have a leg to stand on.
But since you read minds, I'm curious: why did Topalov choose to play under FIDE for all those years? Why didn't he ever complain about how conspiratorial FIDE was?

<BTW, did Topalov have any past record of making such accusations in the thousands of games he had played? Isn't a bit odd that he wouldn't suddenly start then?>

Yes, how odd that he would do that in a World Championship match he was losing rather than in a weekend backyard Swiss.

<You don't have to explain that it was a quote from Kramnik's team, who else could possibly assert such a desperately lame argument (present company excluded)?>

By golly, it is preposterous indeed that a gentleman should think someone with a medical condition might actually have some use for a private restroom!

But then you're trying to support the totally not desperately lame argument that Topalov was the victim of a conspiracy by the federation he chose to play for, the appeals committee, the tournament organizers and everybody else except you and team Topalov (beatgiant, Petrosianic and I are in it too, the rascals!), so...

<In any case, I can see that the "3 little [Russian] bears" will persist in ignoring/distorting and generally burying my contributions on the general principle that most readers won't bother to even read what I really said, which simply proves the power of dogged propaganda over claims for objective verification in this intellectual iron age of the mass media.>

You haven't made any contribution. You made a bunch of claims you couldn't back up, they were picked full of holes you couldn't patch, and now you're crying and stomping your feet on the ground.

OhioChessFan: <Petro: I appreciate the conversation because we're all tempted to be irrational at times, even those of us who don't give into it, and we need a reality check now and then to remind us of how ridiculous it looks to others lest we be tempted.>

Petrosianic: I will add that two of my favorite memories of this match come from Topalov.

One is from that Toilet War book he had written to cash in on the whole thing. The blurb on the back of the book had this line about "Throughout Europe, the world is hearing the volleys of a Toilet War!", which struck me as unintentionally hilarious. Partly because it's phrased in such a way as to assume that everyone already knows what a Toilet War is. Since then, I've added the phrase "the volleys of a Toilet War" to my repertoire of stock phrases. Some day I really need to buy the book itself.

The other is a line Topalov used when he was trying to claim everyone was after him. He was saying he was afraid that if he made any waves, they'd close the airports and leave him trapped in Elista (mind you he WASN'T afraid to break the rules openly).

But then he made this comment that how do you get out of Russia if they close the airports? You certainly can't WALK out. This was funny too, but I think it was intentionally funny this time. He's conjuring up images of Napoleon's Retreat from Moscow, and other incidents where people marched into Russia, got stuck in its vast wastelands, and were wiped out. Very funny comment.

Petrosianic: Oh, my!! I found the whole quote and found something I'd forgotten about it! This is great!

<The back cover of the book states: "Chess has the reputation of being a quiet game, in which there are no ankle injuries or bruised elbows. But in the godforsaken town of Elista we hear the artillary volleys of a toilet war." Kramnik's repeated visits to the toilet are characterised by the author as "biotechnological poison" that Kramnik used against Topalov.>

The content is totally stupid, but I absolutely love this writing style. It's like the back cover of a pulp novel.

But the part I'd forgotten was the phrase "Godforsaken Elista". For at least a year after the match, I never referred to Elista at all in a post without putting that adjective in front of it. If Kramnik wants to slam Fide HQ, as well as Kirsan's home town this way, I'll go along with that.

Come to think of it, it was this phrase, "Godforsaken Elista", that made Topalov's comment about how you can't walk out of Russia even funnier. I can't imagine how I forgot this.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.